Quote:
Originally Posted by flip
Just curious but neither of these replies offered an answer.
Is part of the justification not that it allows them to raise funds to help rebuild their shattered culture?
I'm aware theU is being sarcastic but I don't really have any other valid explanations.
|
Sorry, Flip, I didn't go into this thread since I posted that. I forgot all about it.
What you said is fair, and I apologize for not being more open about it.
First of all, to paint it that all natives have casinos and that they do it all for the same reason is wrong. Not all natives have casinos. Where I am from there are at least 6 native communities around where I live, and not one of them has a casino, nor would I think they would want want. They battle enough issues with alcohol and drug abuse, and they are not money grubbing enough to want a casino just for financial gain.
Secondly, some native bands may very well decide to build a casino in order to rebuild their culture. I wouldn't agree with that reasoning, but the reason why they would in say Calgary or Edmonton is because there is no land left for them to practice their culture. I think that some of them reason out that they can earn funding through a casino in order to help pay for facilities and gatherings to practice their culture.
My objection is that he was painting every native with the same brush. Indians and casinos. That is simply wrong. Native history is very rich and they are very proud. They are human like everyone else, and do things for money, or for other reasons that are not always the best. But they don't deserve to be painted with the same brush. It is like saying all white people are like _____. It is wrong, and to me it appeared to be veiled racism.
I apologize if that was not the intent, The U, but talking about other people like that can get you in hot water. Just like all blacks eat fried chicken. I wouldn't normally have said anything at all but that pressed my button.